Pakistan acquits four of assisting failed NYC bomb plot

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- A Pakistani anti-terrorism court on Saturday acquitted four men who had been charged with helping a Pakistani-American man carry out a failed attempt to detonate a truck bomb in New York's Times Square, said their lawyer and family members.

The four were arrested in the wake of Faisal Shahzad's May 2010 attack, which fizzled when the explosives in his vehicle produced smoke but no blast. Shahzad has pleaded guilty and admitted to getting training from the Pakistani Taliban in the country's tribal region along the Afghanistan border. He was sentenced to life in prison in the United States.

The attempted attack increased tension between Pakistan and the United States, which has long accused Islamabad of not doing enough to crack down on militants on its soil who pose a threat to the West.

Even though the men acquitted yesterday had been in custody for two years, very few details had emerged about their closed-door trial in an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi, next to the capital, Islamabad.

Such trials rarely produce convictions in Pakistan because police often lack basic investigative skills, prosecutors lack training in terror cases and judges and witnesses are often subject to intimidation.

One of the men released yesterday, Muhammad Shoaib Mughal, had been charged with providing Shahzad with financial assistance, said his lawyer, Malik Imran Safdar. The other three men, Humbal Akhtar, Muhammad Shahid Husain and Faisal Abbasi, were charged as Mughal's accomplices, said Safdar.

After their arrests, several of the men were also accused of helping Shahzad link up with militants in the tribal region. Those accusations do not seem to have resulted in any charges.

Akhtar's father said he was ecstatic at his son's release.

"I have suffered a lot during these two tough years," said Muhammed Akhtar. "Finally I got justice."

Two other men arrested by Pakistan in the wake of the attempted Times Square attack were previously released. It's unclear if Pakistan has any other suspects in custody.

Human rights groups have long criticized Pakistani security officials for holding suspects for months, even years, without filing charges or divulging any information about their cases.

Most of the men acquitted yesterday come from the same stock as Shahzad: wealthy, urban, educated and with careers in computers, telecommunications and graphic design. Mughal was running a large computer dealership in Islamabad before his detention.

One of the things that Shahzad said motivated him to carry out his attack was U.S. drone strikes targeting militants in Pakistan's tribal region. The strikes are very unpopular in Pakistan because many citizens believe they mostly kill innocent people, an allegation disputed by the United States.

The strikes have continued to cause tension between the U.S. and Pakistani governments, but American officials have made it clear that they have no intention of stopping the attacks, which they see as vital to fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The latest strike occurred yesterday when a drone fired two missiles at a motorbike in Dogh village in the South Waziristan tribal area, killing two suspected militants, said Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. It was the fifth such strike in the country in less than two weeks.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.